 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Haith1/7/2003
UNPUBLISHED
A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 (e)(3).
Defendant Terry Lee Haith was charged with driving while impaired and reckless driving to endanger on 26 September 1999. His case was heard in the Guilford County Criminal District Court on 12 June 2000, where he was convicted of the driving while impaired charge, the State having decided not to proceed on the reckless driving charge. Defendant appealed his conviction to the Guilford County Superior Court on 13 June 2000.
Defendant was tried at the 1 October 2001 Criminal Session of the Guilford County Superior Court. Again, the State did not proceed on the reckless driving charge. On 4 October 2001, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to the driving while impaired. Defendant's sentence of 60 days was suspended, and he was placed on 12 months' unsupervised probation. Defendant also was ordered to perform 24 hours of community service.
The State presented evidence tending to show that at approximately 3:12 a.m. on 26 September 1999, Deputy Jeffrey Greeson of the Guilford County Sheriff's Department observed a vehicle weaving within its lane of travel near the intersection of Lindsay Avenue and Murrow Street in Greensboro. Officer Greeson followed the vehicle and observed the vehicle straddle two lanes and then swerve abruptly to the left to avoid a traffic island. Officer Greeson stopped the vehicle, which was occupied by defendant alone. Noting the odor of alcohol, the officer asked defendant whether he had had something to drink. Defendant responded that he had "some beers." Deputy Greeson also observed that defendant's speech was slurred, he was unbalanced while stepping out of the vehicle, his eyes were red and glassy, and his demeanor was carefree. Defendant performed poorly on the field sobriety tests. Deputy Greeson formed the opinion that defendant had consumed an amount of some impairing substance sufficient to appreciably impair his mental and physical faculties. Deputy Greeson arrested defendant and transported him to the detention center. Deputy Greeson took defendant into the intoxilyzer room for the purpose of obtaining a sample of his breath. Defendant refused to sign the waiver of rights form and to answer any questions. Four times defendant failed to expel sufficient breath for a breath sample. On the fifth attempt defendant pushed themachine away and instructed the officers to record him as having willfully refused to submit a sample of breath.
At the conclusion of the State's evidence, defendant moved to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence. The court denied the motion and noted, sua sponte, that inquiry into defendant's exercise of his rights under Miranda may have been improper. The court invited defendant to make a motion for a mistrial. Defendant conferred with his attorney and notified the court, through his attorney, that he did not desire a mistrial and that he desired to proceed with the trial. Defendant then informed the court that he did not wish to present evidence. Defendant renewed his motion to dismiss the charge and the court denied it again.
I.
Defendant first contends that the trial court committed plain error by not declaring a mistrial after the jury heard testimony that defendant refused to waive his Miranda rights. As noted above, defendant declined the invitation to move for a mistrial and insisted upon completing the tria
Page 1 2 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|